tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC May 25, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
coming by tonight. that's "all in" for this evening, "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. this is a little bit weird. i need to start with a personal caveat this evening. i actually spent the day homesick. i came into work. i realized i was too sick to be here. i went and saw a doctor. and then on doctor's advice, i went homesick. i then came back in because of tonight's breaking news, particularly because it is nbc news that is breaking part of it. but you can probably tell that i'm not -- i'm not at my best. just as a human here, i have to tell you i'm a little bit of a mess. i'm on meds that make me out of it. i apologize for neither looking nor sounding nor being my best. but you know, once in a lifetime, this story. when i got the call about this news, i wanted to come in because i think this is important. and here's the contours, the very basic context of what just happened. this story, as far as i can
tell, we're going to confirm this with one of the reporters who broke this story in just a moment, but i think what we just learned tonight actually started on friday night. on friday night, "the washington post" broke two important pieces of news. first they reported that the fbi investigation into the trump-russia affair was focused in on money, on potential financial crimes committed by people close to the president. and, you know, before that was posted in "the times" on friday night, that point was sort of surmisable from some other things we had seen reported, like for example grand jury subpoenas for business records for security records from mike flynn, also from the treasury's financial crime unit. we had some indications that money was becoming central to the fbi's investigation. or at least to some of these investigations. but that "washington post" report on fday night was the first direct, clear reporting we
had that financial crimes are the point or at least a point of focus for the fbi. so that was one thing "the post" broke on friday night. the other scoop they had on friday night was the other one that made the headline. russia probe reaches current white house official, according to people familiar with the case. so a person of interest in the trump-russia investigation. not just who was a trump associate or worked in business with trump or was part of the trump campaign or is a fired official who used to be in the campaign. but somebody currently working in the white house at a very high level, working as a senior adviser to the president. and in addition to that, the person who was the person of interest for the fbi's investigation in the trump-russia probe is described as being someone, quote, being close to the president. that is what we had as of friday night. and now, nbc news reports that the person of interest has a name, and that name is jared
kushner. jared kushner, senior white house adviser. he is the president's son-in-law, unlike any other presidential family member in u.s. history, he has a vast policy portfolio. we've had, you know, a member of the president's family in the cabinet before as attorney general. we've had a member of the president's family working on a specific policy, hillary clinton working on health reform for bill clinton. we've had a lot of people do specific things for their family member who is a president. but his policy portfolio is everything from middle east peace to mexico to china to all trade deals to broadband nationwide to the opioid crisis. kind of everything you can name has been described as jared's portfolio. in more ways than one, he is a figure as close to the president and as close to the powers of the presidency as it is possible to be without being donald trump himself. so nbc news reports tonight that jared kushner is now under
scrutiny in the fbi's trump-russia probe. this is according to multiple u.s. officials. those officials telling nbc news tonight that jared kushner is a person of interest, which is a term that has no legal meaning, but people use it in the news all the time. and to be clear about what that means, mr. kushner is under scrutiny. but that doesn't mean that he is a suspect. from nbc news reports, nbc news' report tonight, quote, investigators believe jared kushner has significant information relevant to their inquiry. that does not mean they suspect him of a crime or intend to charge him. the officials said kushner is in a different category from former trump aides paul manafort and michael flynn who are formally considered subjects of the investigation. jared kushner, they believe, has useful information. now, nbc reports tonight that it remains unclear, quote, what
precisely about kushner's activities has drawn the fbi's interest. that said, nbc news had this story tonight. "the washington post" also had this story tonight, they also broke this story at basically the same time as nbc did. i can tell you exactly minute to minute who put theirs out first, but i told you, i was homesick all day, and at the time these stories broke i was like this. on the couch until my phone rang. so i don't know. actually i think i hurt myself just doing that. whoo. i can tell you in "the washington post"'s version they broke tonight, they add this, which is specifically. quote, kushner, who held meetings in december with the russian ambassador and a banker from moscow, is being investigated because, because of the extent and nature of his interactions with the russians. now, all right, then.
if possible financial crimes by people near the president is a focus of the fbi's inquiries, and the extent and nature of jared kushner's interactions with the russians is why the presidens son-in-law has become a key personf interest in the investigation, what do we do with those two things? does that mean necessarily that those two things are linked, financial crimes and links with the russians, right? does that mean there are financial elements of the way the russians interacted with the trump campaign that are suggesting possible cooperation or collusion? are those two things connected? if you follow the money, does that get you to the question of cooperation or collusion? is that what we are getting closer to understanding tonight? now, we have known since last month that when jared kushner applied for his security clearance, he failed to disclose on his security clearance application dozens of contacts that he had with foreign officials, including meetings with russian officials. we know that one of the meetings he did not disclose with the
russian official was with the russian ambassador. but we also know that another one of the meetings he didn't disclose was with a different russian. we've talked about this on the show before. it seems like there is renewed focus on this aspect of jared kushner's last few months, now that he seems to have risen to the top as a person of interest in the white house. the meeting that he took, not with the russian ambassador but with a different russian official, had to do with a bank called veb. veb is basically a russian state controlled bank. when i say it's sta state-controlled, one of the things i mean about that specifically is vladimir putin used to chair the board of supervisors for the bank. putin is known to direct the activities of veb bank himself personally. putin's position at the head of that bank allowed him to use that bank to finance the sochi olympics construction, which of course was crazily, crazily over budget, the most expensive
olympics ever. that financing for that construction went through veb bank at putin's direction. veb also occupies a very interesting corner of the intelligence world. veb is under sanctions by the united states government because of its links to and its facilitation of the activities of the russian government. a top executive in veb's new york office just recently this year got out of federal prison in the united states. he had been serving time in ohio after being convicted basically as serving as an undeclared russian spy while he was purporting to work for veb bank in new york city. the charging documents against that spy showed that his spy ring had been trying to recruit americans to become russian agents. one of those targeted americans was trump campaign once upon a time foreign policy adviser carter page. and one of the meetings with a russian official, that presidential son-in-law jared kushner did not disclose on his application for security clearance was his meeting with the head of this bank.
and the head of this bank himself has ties to russian intelligence. and the head of this bank himself was personally tapped for that position running that bank. just last year by vladimir putin himself. pun installed this guy at the top of veb last year. then this guy after the election meets personally with jared kushner. so if up an investigator sifting through curious collisions of proper names until the russia-trump investigation, you would have jared kushner and the russian ambassador. a lot of people have meetings that they didn't disclose with the russian ambassador. but you would also have this other thing that other people don't seem to have, which is jared kushner and this state-controlled russian bank that's linked to the russian intelligence services. if you're an investigator, you've already got like string tied between those two tacks on your bulletin board. you might also remember that just last week, "the wall street
journal" reported a new piece of information about that bank, about veb bank, and its previously unreported ties to the trump organization. "wall street journal" reported just last week that veb pumped millions of dollars into trump's business partner in a big trump-branded toronto building that has had lots of financial difficulties. so now we have, according to nbc news and "the washington post," we have jared kushner named as the focus of the fbi investigation inside the white house, not described as a suspect, not necessarily accused of any wrongdoing, but apparently a person of interest to investigators. we also just moments ago -- wait, wrong direction, i told you i'm a little bit out of it -- moments ago we got this statement from jared kushner's lawyer. i want to give it to you verbatim. statement from jared kushner's lawyer. quote, mr. kushner previously volunteered to share with congress what he knows about these meetings, meaning the
russian meetings. he will do the same if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry. i think the last "if" there is doing a lot of work. the statement from jared kushner's lawyer tonight suggesting, if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry suggests mr. kushner has not yet been contacted by the fbi in the trump-russia investigation. one of the unanswered questions we've had is whether anyone in the white house has had an fbi interview since inauguration or even during the transition other than the now-fired national security adviser mike flynn. we still don't know the answer to that. we have a hint from mr. kushner's lawyer tonight that jared kushner has not spoken with the fbi, at least not yet. joining us now from "the washington post" newsroom is one of four heavyweight reporter by-lines about jared kushner being a focus of the fbi
investigation. thanks for making time for us, congratulations on this. >> thank you, and thanks for coming in on what probably should have been a day off. >> i hope you can't tell, other than the fact that i said it. part of the reason i wanted to talk to you is you were also by-lined in the really big story in "the post" on friday night that reported there was a person of interest in the trump-russia investigation who is working as a senior white house adviser. should we see your story tonight as essentially a part two? friday you said there was a person of interest, now you're naming the person. do they fit together that way? >> yes, definitely, the person we referred to last week is definitely jared kushner. we've done a lot more reporting to lock down that that person is jared kushner. we've also done more reporting to lock down at least one component of what they're interested in, these december meetings. you mentioned financial crimes. financial crimes is a part of this. i think we're one step short of where you want to go which is that they suspect some financial
wrongdoing on jared kushner. i, like your reporters, would stop short of saying he's a suspect in this. but there's a definitely a lot of reason to be interested in him. >> let me be specific, i don't want to go anywhere that the facts don't indicate. i'm just trying to be super clear on that. you guys have reporting that says financial crimes are of interest. and you guys have reporting that says jared kushner is a person of interest in the trump-russia investigation. but we don't actually have any information as to whether or not the interest in him is driven by financial crimes or potential financial crimes? >> yes, that's absolutely right. now, we're not saying it's not. but we're not saying we're there yet. we're not connecting the financial crimes piece of this directly to jared kushner. there are other folks in the investigation who you mentioned, mike flynn and paul manmanafort who maybe are more obvious on that front, although kushner has been involved in some interactions that maybe would get your feelers up a little
bit. but you're right, we're not yet connecting the financial crimes piece of this to kushner. >> you said you've been able to do more reporting so that you can name him. the justice department is not commenting on this at all. obviously everybody has been chafing this story as hard as they can. once you guys said person of interest in the white house, everybody has been trying to figure out who it is. do you suspect this is the sort of thing where either the fbi or the justice department would ever make a public statement about this, if he does become a target of the investigation which i know you're not saying he is now, if he did become a target, would we expect him or his lawyers to be notified of that fact? is that how this works? >> in some investigations they will send what's called aarget letter to people and say, hey, you are the target of this investigation. i'm not sure if it would work that way here. it will all be up now to bob mueller, who is a former fbi director, who is the special counsel that's leading this thing now. historically he has been pretty tight-lipped about everything. so if jared kushner were to
become the target of the investigation, i doubt that he would sort of go to congress or go to the public and say, quick update, you know, jared kushner is the target. >> okay. it seems likely that investigators might be interested in those meetings that kushner held in december with a russian official, the head of a russian-state-run bank that's close to putin. if they're interested in his interactions with russians, we know about that. you guys are also reporting that fbi agents have been looking more closely at earlier exchanges between trump associates and russians that date back a long time earlier, to spring 2016. what can you tell us, if anything, about those meetings? >> yes, so there's one in particular, this april 2016, i can't even call it a meeting, but there's an event at the mayflower hotel where kushner is at and sessions is at and kislyak is at. we don't know exactly to what extent if any that kushner and
kislyak intact at this thing. but what we do know is that investigators are interested in this april event. we're not exactly sure why right now, but we think that's important because the broad strokes of this investigation are coordination between the trump campaign and the kremlin during the campaign. and april is, you know, before the election. the december meetings are all after the election. and the people who would defend kushner would say, well, look, he is the president's top foreign policy guy. he's sort of a transition official at that point. he's well within his rights to be having meetings or conversations with foreign dignitaries. maybe a little weird to be having them with a russian banker and the russian ambassador, given what russia just did with our election, but they would say, look, he's within his rights to do that. the pre-election meeting maybe is of interest because it's, you know, during the campaign. we're not really sure, although we are told that that april meeting is of investigative interest, or that april event, i should say.
>> fascinating and super clear. matt, covering the justice department for "the washington post," by-lined in this "washington post" story, congratulations again on this report, appreciate you being here. i want to bring into the conversation now barbara mcquaid, she is one of the u.s. attorneys who was asked to resign by president trump this past march very suddenly. she has extensive experience prosecuting a lot of different kinds of high profile cases. former u.s. attorney barbara mcquaid, thanks for being with us tonight, we appreciate it. >> thanks, rachel. >> let me ask you first about these terms we're throwing around which i bet make you cringe as a former u.s. attorney. person of interest is a term that i know has no formal legal meaning. it's used a lot in journalism to indicate that investigators sort of have a beadn somebody. they may not be about to charge them with anything, they may not even suspect them of wrongdoing, but they are interested in that
person. is that the right way to understand that? is there better language that we should use around being more specific in that regard? >> we never use that term in law enforcement. i can understand why it's used in media, because you don't know exactly what category someone falls under. the three general categories that someone like this might be falling under right now in sort of increasing order of seriousness would be, number one, just a witness. it may be that he has information, that he attended meetings, that he participated in conversations that might be useful to the investigation. the next level would be subject of the investigation. that's somebody whose conduct might fall under the scope of the investigation. they may or they may not be charged at some point. and then the most serious is someone who is a target of the investigation. that usually comes later in the investigation, after a substantial amount of evidence has been gathered, and the prosecutor believes that the person is a likely defendant. >> somebody at the stage of
targeting, not suspicion, but somebody who is at the stage that we believe jared kushner is the ahere, would a person in that role expect to be notified by the fbi or notified by investigators that investigators wanted to speak with him, that they were a potential witness, that they were thought to have information that might be of use? >> yes. i think at some point. based on the reporting i've heard, they say he's not in the same category as flynn and manafort who are subjects. he is in a lesser category. so it sounds to me that they're at the moment considering him to be a witness. and if so, the first step would be to see if he would voluntarily produce documents or sit for an interview. and if someone won't do that voluntarily, the next step is to issue a subpoena which would require him to testify before a grand jury. >> if he is potentially a witness for the fbi investigation, who would issue that subpoena?
would that be from robert mueller who is overseeing the investigations, would that go through a u.s. attorney's office? >> it sounds like the investigation is being run out of the u.s. attorney's office for the eastern district of virginia, which may are the place where venue is appropriate for this investigation. so typically it would be that office. it's actually issued under the authority of the grand jury. but it's the u.s. attorney's office that does the paperwork and prepares the document and sends it out. >> one other point raised by raised by mr. kushner's lawyer this evening is that he has already previously stated that he would be happy to cooperate with and happy to appear before the senate intelligence committee which is investigating these matters. jamie gorelick, the lawyer tonight, said he would be happy to talk to anybody else involving any other inquiry. in terms of whether or not jared kushner might appear before any of the congressional committees who are investigating this, would we expect that robert mueller, who is overseeing the fbi investigations, would have to okay that, that it's something that if we had been
expecting jared kushner to testify in congress before, maybe right now this means he's less likely to? >> well, he doesn't necessarily have to okay it. but there's certainly a tension between those things. if i'm robert mueller, i would rather have the first crack at any witness, including jared kushner, so that he's not telling multiple stories in multiple forums. but i can't prohibit him from testifying. if he goes before congress to testify, he may be concerned that his statements there could be used against him in the criminal investigation. and so it may be that he invokes his fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself before the grand jury to protect him from criminal prosecution down the road. so those two different investigations proceeding on parallel tracks creates some tension and challenges. >> and create a need for all of us civilians to re-look-up the word over and over again the word "de-conflict" which doesn't exist in nature. thank you very much for walking us through this, i appreciate your help. >> thank you. much more ahead tonight.
nbc news presidential historian michael tchlos is here, champing at the bit for a very good reason. we think we've solved a mystery about the firing of fbi director james coki james comey, that is ahead for us tonight. stay with us. index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums. schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost index funds in the industry with no minimums. i bet they're calling about the schwab news. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.
will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. whether you're after and gesupreme performance...way. ♪
one thing that president richard nixon had going for him in watergate was a whole cast of characters in the nixon administration who had various degrees of involvement in or knowledge of watergate. and that ultimately had its downsides. but for a while there, that really helped keep nixon afloat, because one after the other, he
tried to throw those people to the wolves to save himself. don't blame me, blame the ass t assistant to the president, or take john dean instead. yes, i know you would like to burn me at the stake, but here, i offer you my own attorney general, here is a commemorative lighter with which you may want to burn him. nixon tried to save his own bacon by cutting loose and then blaming stuff on a whole succession of government staffers who found themselves more or less mixed up in his watergate mess. what would he have done, though, if it had been his own family who had been caught up in his watergate mess? would he have cut them off too? separated himself off from them too? tried to throw them under the bus to save himself too?
can a president, you know, even try? can a president even attempt cutting off his own son-in-law? a man married to his daughter, once we've learned that is the person of interest in the fbi's investigation? and while i think we can all appreciate this realtime, real life lesson in why we have those nepotism laws after all, is there anything else like this in our history? is there any precedent for this that can tell us what to expect as to what's going to happen next? joining us now is michael beschlos nbc news presidential histian o knows these things. michael, thank you for being with us, we appreciate it. >> my pleasure, rachel. >> so we have had presidential family members involved in governing before. >> we have. >> robert kennedy was attorney general, he was in the cabinet. but looking at presidents under investigation, looking at this particular twist of nepotism in
the trump administration, is there anything like this at all that we can learn from in our history? >> there's nothing like this even in the investigation. we've had presidents for 228 years. i don't think we've ever had a family member as powerful as jared kushner in a formal role at the top of the white house staff, that's number one. we've now got a special prosecutor. that raises the possibility we'll see what we saw during watergate which was prosecutors trying to pit those aides that you mentioned, haldeman and ehrlichman and others, but now we see the possibility of a son-in-law being pitted against his father-in-law. >> there's nothing legally, is there, that is an additional complication. i know that there are rules about spouses testifying against one another. those things don't apply beyond that immediate familial relationship, right? >> no, i think that's exactly right.
so if jared kushner knows things that the prosecutors want, they will go to extraordinary lengths to find those things out. and especially if they're aiming at his father-in-law. >> michael, when we look at other presidential family members who have made the news in unflattering ways, and there have definitely been a lot of brothers, i'm thinking in particular, who have made the news in unflattering ways. have presidents in the past been able to or even tried to distance themselves from family members who got either into embarrassing things or potentially really scandalous things? >> they have a little bit. for instance, richard nixon had a brother, donald nixon, who was dragged in in a tiny way in the water scandal having to do with money. it actually was distant enough from nixon that he didn't have to sort of fib about it. and you've had billy carter, sort of the same thing, questions about dealings with libya. but a president could credibly say, this is my brother.
but when a guy is your son-in-law and is sitting next to you in the oval office and appears at every important event including this trip that donald trump has just been on, awfully hard for the president to say, i barely know the guy. >> nbc news historian michael beschloss. >> feel better, we need you. >> i'll do my best. >> okay. >> thank you. much more ahead on this very busy news night including the possibility that the house mist pass out at any moment. asonablyw fast food drive thru lane. but what a powerful life lesson. and don't worry i have everything handled. i already spoke to our allstate agent, and i know that we have accidentorgiveness. which is so smart on your guy's part. like fact that they'll just... forgive you... four weeks without the car. okay. yep. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it.
oscar mawe went back toig the drawing board... and the cutting board. we removed the added nitrates and nitrites, by-products, and artificial preservatives in all of our meat. every. single. one. why? for the love of hot dogs. i discovered a woman my family tree, named marianne gaspard. i became curious where in africa she was from. so i took the ancestry dna test to find out more about my african roots. ancestry really helped me fill in a lot of details.
my belly pain i could build a small city with all the over-the-counter products i've used. enough! i've tried enough laxatives to cover the eastern seaboard. i've climbed a mount everest of fiber. probiotics? enough! (avo) if you've had enough, tell your doctor what you've tried and how long you've been at it. linzess works differently from laxatives. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. it can help relieve your belly pain, and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements that are easier to pass. do not give linzess to children less than six, and it should not be given to children six to less than eighteen. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach-area pain and swelling. talk to your doctor about managing your symptoms proactively with linzess.
so the big news tonight, that jared kushner, the president's son-in-law, is a person of interest in the fbi investigation into the trump-russia affair, that news relates to the fbi, to special counsel robert mueller's criminal probe into the trump administration's ties with russia and any potential cooperation by the trump campaign into the russia attack. meanwhile, the ongoing congressional investigations into the same affair are also looking for answers in their own way. but we now know as of today, they are not getting their answers anymore. at least they're not get them on deadline. today, the justice department told the house oversight committee that it will not hand over some documents that the committee had requested be turned over by yesterday. the deadline was yesterday. the documents didn't turn up by yesterday. today we got this explanation from the fbi.
the oversight committee had asked to see any memos written by former fbi director james comey detailing his conversations with president trump. these are the memos that were described to "the new york times" last week that purportedly documented attempts by president trump to tell the fbi director that he should shut down the fbi's investigation of mike flynn. if those comey memos in fact exist, lots of people would like to see them. but those memos will now remain a mystery for the time being because now the fbi has told congress they're not going to hand them over. they missed that deadline deliberately, because now there's a special counsel overseeing the fbi investigations and they're going to have to ask him, they're going to have to ask robert mueller before they hand over anything. so if you were looking forward to that being leaked instantly as soon as those memos were handed over to congress, those memos aren't getting handed over to congress, at least anytime soon. on top of that, though, there is one mystery about james comey's firing and the question of whether or not that was the
president trying to obstruct justice in the trump-russia investigation. there's one piece of that that we think we' sved tonight. we've got that exclusive, next, right after this break. liberty mutual stood with us when a fire destroyed everything in our living room. we replaced it all without touching our savings. yeah, our insurance won't do that. no. you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance ayou don't have to choose just one thing. when liberty stands with you™. choose your trio with any 3 of 9 selections for $15.99. like new creamy lobster pasta
it's how well you mow fast. it's not how fast you mow... ...it's how well you mow fast! they're not just words to mow by, they're words to live by. the john deere ztrak z345r. working on my feet all day gave me pain here. in my knees. so i stepped on this machine and got my number, which matched my dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic inserts. so i get immediate relief from my foot pain. my knee pain. find a machine at drscholls.com. there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it.
they offer free cancellation if my plans change. visit booking.com. booking.yeah. p3 planters nuts, jerky and whaseeds.at? i like a variety in my protein. totally, that's why i have this uh trail mix. wow minty. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. so we've got some new information in the trump-russia investigation. it is not a blockbuster revelation but i think it's important and clarifying. it's about a key part of the behavior of the trump administration with regard to the fbi since trump has been in office. so not during the campaign but since the inauguration.
and i think what is widely believed to have happened, what is widely believed to have -- actually widely reported to have happened at this key point in time, what we think we know about it i think is wrong. i think we can correct that record tonight. so just settle in for a second and follow this through with me. first of all, there are two things that we know for sure the fbi is investigating. and we know for sure because the fbi has said so publicly. then there is a third thing that we believe the fbi is investigating but we don't actually know for sure. what we know for sure about what the fbi is investigating, we know because james comey said so publicly in congress. >> i have been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi as part of our counterintelligence mission is investigating the russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. and that includes investigating
the nature of any links between individuals associated with the trump campaign and the russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and russia's efforts. >> so that was their one and only public statement. and that means there are two things we know for sure from public information that the fbi is investigating. there is also another thing we believe they're investigating. as you just heard comey say, the two things the fbi confirms they're looking into are number one, the russians' efforts to interfere in the presidential election, and number two, any links between the trump campaign and the russian government including the question of whether anyone in the trump campaign coordinated with the russians. we know those two investigations are under way at the fbi. after james comey was fired, those investigations started being overseen by the acting director of the fbi who they promoted to replace comey, andrew mccabe. and once the special counsel was appointed, the guy who took over running those investigations is robert mueller, former director
of the bureau who has authority not only to investigate what happened but to bring charges if he sees fit. and we know from the order that appointed mueller to that role that the investigations he's overseeing are those investigations you just heard comey describe to congress there on that day back in march. but there is another matter that is widely believed to also be the subject of fbi investigation. we don't know for re, because the fbi hasn't said. but it is widely believed that they may also be looking into the issue of obstruction of justice. we believe the justice department may be investigating this through their inspector general's office, but that is not confirmed. we also believe that the robert mueller led investigations may include obstruction of justice issues. the order naming him as special counsel says he'll investigate any links and/or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the trump campaign. but then right after that it also says he may investigate,
quote -- do we have that? yes -- any matters that arose or may arise directly from that investigation. so we believe, we don't know but we believe that matters that may arise directly from that investigation may include the possibility of the trump transition, the trump administration, even potentially the president himself, trying to obstruct justice, trying to pervert or impede or stop the initial investigation into whether or not trump and his campaign worked with the russians. so the first thing we know the fbi is investigating, the russian attack on our election, we already know a lot about that as civilians, right? the intelligence community has put out two public reports on that, one back in october and an extensive one in january. the second thing that's definitely being investigated by the fbi, this possibility of the trump campaign helping the russians in their attack or cooperating in it, we know more and more about that possibility all the time.
investigators and journalists every day track down more and more information about the inordinate and bewildering number of contacts between trump campaign figures and russian officials during the course of the campaign and thereafter. that's where the real drama is in terms of the day to day reporting on this scandal. but here is why i think it's time to get real about what that means. the russian attack on the election was an attack by a foreign power on the united states for sure. that may or may not be a crime. possibly it is. maybe it is. but we don't really know and we don't know what crime that would be. it's a fairly unique circumstance, right? beyond that, beyd just the russians attacking, the question of some american, any amerin cooperating in that attack by a foreign power, well, obviously that shocks the conscience. it could conceivably be treason to the extent that it meant that the perpetrators adhered to enemies of the united states. but honestly, i'm not sure where
something like that goes in terms of potential criminal charges, right? if that collusion and cooperation happened between the trump campaign and the russians, if it is provable, is it a crime? for u.s. persons to do something like that? maybe. i don't know. there's a lot of arguing about it. but i'm not sure it's perfectly clear in terms of it being a prosecutable offense. it would certainly have a good likelihood of being an impeachable offense if it was a public official who did it. but consider who you would be counting on there to save the republic. yeah. but that's why the last point of investigation is important there. the possibility of investigating obstruction of justice. because obstruction of justice brightly, obviously, clearly is a crime. and we believe the fbi is investigating the possibility of that crime related to the russia investigation. we don't know for sure but we think they are. if they are of course they have a wealth of avenues to choose from.
attorney general jeff sessions breaking his recusal from all issues on the trump campaign to nevertheless participate in the firing of james comey who was leading the investigation into russia and the trump campaign. or there's the matter of the white house chief of staff reportedly pressuring fbi director comey to make public statements about the fbi investigation to try to exonerate the administration. there's the president himself reportedly pressuring fbi director james comey to make public statements about the fbi trump-russia investigation to try to exonerate the administration. there is the president himself reportedly asking the director of national intelligence and the director of the nsa to make public statements about the investigation to try to exonerate the administration. there is the matter of senior white house officials reportedly asking intelligence officials of some stripe to intervene with directoromey to tell him to stop the fbi investigation into trump national security adviser mike flynn. there is the president himself reportedly asking director comey to let go, to let go that fbi
investigation into mike flynn. there is the president himself firing the fbi director. and later, making statements both to a news organization, nbc news, and to russian officials in the oval office that the reason he did so, the reason he fired comey was because of the pressure he felt over the russia investigation. there is also what appear to be potentially knowingly false statements by multiple justice department officials and white house officials including the vice president himself about why director comey was fired. there's also efforts by justice department officials to create a false pretext for why director comey was fired. there is also what appear to be knowingly false statements about what the white house and the transition knew about national security adviser mike flynn and when they knew it. so it's not like there's any shortage of avenues, right, to drive down if what you're trying to prove is obstruction of justice. all of those things may be part of any ongoing investigation into whether the president and this administration obstructed justice in the trump-russia
investigation. there's a ton. but here's one that maybe should not be seen as one of those avenues. on may 10, the day after james comey was fired, "the new york times" reported that less than a week before he was fired, the fbi director had asked the justice department for more resources in the russia investigation. quote, days before he was fired as fbi director, james comey asked the justice department for more prosecutors and other personnel to accelerate the bureau's investigation into russia's interference in the presidential election. that was "the times"' first reporting, subsequent versions were reported by multiple media outlets including nbc news. but from the beginning, there was this interesting thing. the justice department insisted emphatically that it was not true, that this claim that james comey had asked for more resources, they said it was totally false, 100% false, there was absolutely no request. and honestly, i wl tell you
personally, i don't trust official denials any further than i can throw them, particularly these days, but there was just something not just insistent but instant, insistent, and consistent, just emphatic, about the justice department denials on this. and then the acting director of the fbi, under oath, said he knew of no such request by director comey for more resources for the trump-russia investigation in the days before he was fired, and then the deputy attorney general testified emphatically to congress that he knew of no request for james comey for more resources in the trump-russia investigation before he was fired. and rod rosenstein was the one who reportedly was asked for these resources. it was this unbroken string of consistent denials from the department of justice, no, he did not ask for more resources before he was fired. but all these media outlets.
and the press has been really good and aggressive on this story. a and which is it? because the justice department seems very sure. but there's all those news reports with multiple sources saying he did. did james comey try to speed up and get more resources for the trump russia investigation right before they fired him or didn't he? last week we chased the justice department on this a little. we asked them is the doj saying no requests were made for anything, period? and we got the following on the record reply. quote, none, period. no gray area. now we think we may have figured this out, at least part of it. it is my belief based on our extensive reporting on this that what went wrong here is there was something akin to a game of telephone on capitol hill. and the relaying of information on this point from person to person resulted in these
seeminglyeccilable reports on what james comey did or didn't ask for the trump investigation right befo trump fired him. what we know is this, the day before he was fired, may 8th, fbi director james comey did meet with the leaders of the senate intelligence committee with republican chairman richard burr and democratic vice-chairman mark warner. the three of them met privately. it was just the three of them in the room. and here's where things start to splay out. in the meeting, it appear there's was a discussion about the pace and the progress of the fbi's inquiry into trump russia. it seems in the course of that discussion, director comey brought up the confirmation of deputy attorney general rod rosenstein in late april in a way that suggested or maybe gave the impression to the senators that the investigation might now proceed on a faster track. what we have since learned through our sources is that senators warner and burr relayed the basic content of that
conversation to fellow members of the intelligence committee, as they are right to do. as you would expect them to do as leaders of that committee. but from there, after they conveyed that information to members of their committee, that word started to spread. and that resulted in multiple press reports that comey had asked for more resources just days before he was fired. this claim that continues to be denied by the justice department. now what exactly james comey asked for if anything, again, we do not know. james comey does not talk to me. we know that director comey last met in person with rod rosenstein one week earlier on may 1st. we think that meeting took place at the justice department. we think it took place in the presence of staffers. what exactly was discussed in that meeting, we do not know. but the deputy of justice, rod rosenstein and the current acting director of the fbi have said no request for resources were made in that meeting or at any other time. a week later, comey briefed those two senators which then following comey's subsequent firing led to multiple press reports that comey had asked for something.
from what we understand, if a request was made, it was more like -- likely more a nebulous thing than a direct appeal for more money or more personnel. to the eent that obstruction of justice ends up being the sharpest point on all of the arrows that robert mueller is going to have in his quiver. i think it is worth being very specific about what evidence we've got about potential obstruction of justice by the white house and by the president. and on this point of whether or not comey at the moment he was fired had just asked for more resources for the investigation. i think that is being sourced mostly to congressional sources or to people who got their information from congressional sources. i think those congressional sources thought they were conveying a true thing, and i think because of a game of telephone, it is possible that they conveyed something that had much sharper point on it than
what actually happened between james comey and the justice department. and i will leave there it. because that's exactly what i know, and i know nothing more than that. but boy is it than that we get this story right. we'll be right back. fun in art class. come close, come close. i like that. [ music stops suddenly ] ah. when your pain reliever stops working, your whole day stops. awww. try this. for minor arthritis pain, only aleve can stop pain for up to 12 straight hours with just one pill. thank you. ♪ come on everybody. you can't quit, neither should your pain reliever. stay all day strong with 12 hour aleve. ykeep you sidelined.ng that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals.
for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. dry mouth can affect how your mouth feels and how you feel. discover act dry mouth, specially formulated to soothe and moisturize your mouth. and try new act dry mouth spray for relief when you need it. and try new act dry mouth spray a 10-speed direct-shift 5.0transmission.ine. a meticulously crafted interior. all of these are feats of engineering. combining them with near-perfect weight distribution... ...is a feat of amazing. experience the first-ever 471-horsepower lexus lc 500 or the multistage hybrid lc 500h. experience amazing. it's how well you mow fast. it's not how fast you mow...
...it's how well you mow fast! they're not just words to mow by, they're words to live by. the john deere ztrak z345r. brtry new flonase sensimists. allergy relief instead of allergy pills. it delivers a gentle mist experience to help block six key inflammatory substances. most allergy pills only block one. new flonase sensimist changes everything.
the future isn't silver suits anit's right now.s, think about it. we can push buttons and make cars appear out of thin air. find love anywhere. he's cute. and buy things from, well, everywhere. how? because our phones have evolved. so isn't it time our net? introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network. xfinity mobile. front pages. the billings gazette reporter says gianforte body slammed me. the bozeman daily chronicle. gianforte charged with assault. here is the missoulian,
gianforte charged with misdemeanor assault. today a whole bunch of newspapers beyond those front pages, a bunch of newspapers that once endorsed greg gianforte for congress, they rescinded on election day. i wonder if it's too late. this is a fallout of the news that broke last night that greg gianforte physically assaulted a reporter named ben jacobs from the guardian, last night before the election that gianforte is running in. ben jacobs made an audio recording of the incident that seems to back up his claim that the candidate assaulted him basically out of nowhere while jacobs was asking him question ises about health care. but gianforte's campaign released a statement saying it was basically the opposite, that ben jacobs apparently assaulted greg gianforte, that he grabbed his wrists, and the two of them end upped on the ground together. and it was the reporter's aggressive behavior that lead to the altercation. it's worth noting that ben
jacobs' account was backed up not only by his audio recording, but by an eyewitness account by other people in the room, namely a pox news correspondent and camera crew. and also late last night, the montana sheriff for that county charged the republican candidate. charged gianforte. charged him with misdemeanor assault for allegedly body slamming the reporter. should it be noted that that sheriff is campaign donor to mr. gianforte. now, this all happened just hours before the polls opened for that special election. they open this morning at 7:00 a.m. local time. here is t thing, though. even before t news broke about gianforte allegedly physically attacking this reporter and getting criminally charged for it, this race was already generating huge interest, right? this was a race to replace ryan zinke, who has become secretary of the interior. it's the race between a republican and a democrat in a state that donald trump won by 20 points. today on the heels of the body slam, on the heels of the assault charge, democrats responded by actually putting
out a last-minute radio add that used ben jacobs' audio from the incident. the fact that the dcc jumped on making that ad as fast as they did and got it out for election day shows you how much is at stake here, how hard the two sides are competing. before last night, the polls were already closer than you would expect from a state that trump won by 20 points. it's unclear how this last-minute wild card will affect the race. but polls closed eight seconds ago. it's probably going to be a long night as we wait for those results. but a fascinating one. that does it for us tonight, at least for now. we will see you again tomorrow. now it's time for the last word with joy reid sitting in for lawrence tonight. good evening, joy. >> rachel, my friend, you are a trooper. neither snow nor sleet nor illness nor a hospital bed will keep you from that breaking news. and thank you for coming in, because those reports are so important. how you feeling, most importantly? >> you know, when you a fever and it starts off just feeling hot and then it starts feeling all different kinds of